European Journal of Orthodontics II (1989) 169-178 © 1989 European Orthodontic Society

The quadhelix maxillary expansion appliance:

Part I Mechanics
S. P. Jones* and N. E. Waters**
"Orthodontic Department, Eastman Dental Hospital, London and "Department of Dental Materials
Science, United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St. Thomas's, London

SUMMARY The mechanics of the quadhelix maxillary expansion appliance have been derived
using the complementary (strain) energy approach, and the results checked experimentally on
enlarged models.
Good agreement between theory and experiment was obtained, for both the lateral stiffness
and the magnitude of the molar couple induced. The analysis shows that the spring characteristics
are defined by three parameters, the lateral stiffness, and two other parameters M\ and M\
which are the rate of change of the molar couple with q> and y respectively, where q> is the
angle the molar arm is rotated on engagement and y the lateral displacement.

Introduction assess both the distribution of stress produced

The quadhelix is a fixed orthodontic appliance
often used to expand a narrow maxillary arch,
when tilting of the teeth rather than orthopaedic
correction of a basal discrepancy is required.
Its effects are to increase the intermolar and
intercanine widths and to rotate the molar teeth.
The appliance was originally described by
Ricketts (1975) as a modification of Coffin's W-
spring (Coffin, 1881). It consists of a lingual
expansion arch incorporating four helical loops
(Fig. 1). When activated it produces pressure
which expands the arch and rotates the molar
Jeeth (Bench et al., 1978). The appliance can be
used in its standard fornvfor expansion, although
various modifications have been described to
fulfil additional requirements (Ricketts, 1975;
Bench et al., 1978; Birnie and McNarama, 1980;
West, 1984; Asher, 1985).
A number of clinical investigations have been
carried out to determine the nature of the
expansion produced by this appliance for exam-
ple (Chaconas and de Alba y Levy, 1977; Bell
and LeCompte, 1981; Frank and Engel, 1982;
Bell, 1982 and Hermanson et al., 1985). The
general conclusion reached in these studies was
that a combination of orthodontic and ortho-
paedic movement is obtained in children and that
the orthopaedic effect with adults is negligible.
A variety of techniques have been used to
in the skull and the magnitudes of the forces
and couples produced by a quadhelix. Chaconas
and Caputo (1982), using a three-dimensional
model of a skull assembled from birefringent
materials, concluded that the predominant effect
produced by the quadhelix was orthodontic.
Kamogashira et al. (1983) using strain gauges
fixed at various points to teeth, and the maxil-
lary, zygomatic and frontal bones of monkeys,
found that the effects of lateral expansion varied
according to the way the appliance was activated.
Laboratory studies of the forces delivered by
a quadhelix hitherto have been limited in their
approach. Force-deflection characteristics have
been reported by various authors, for example
(Chaconas and de Alba y-Levy, _1977; Birnie and
McNamara, 1980; Thomas et al., 1982 arid"
Kamogashira et al., 1983). In each case an
approximately linear relationship was observed.
As the dimensions and configurations of the
appliances used in these studies were not given,
the reported stiffnesses are somewhat arbitary
but, for 1 mm diameter wire, ranged between
180 gf for a 20 mm activation (Birnie and
McNamara, 1980) and 636 gf for an 8 mm
deflection (Thomas et al., 1982). No measure-
ments of the rotational couples which it is
possible to induce on the molar teeth with this
appliance have been reported in the literature.
In the present paper the mechanical behaviour
J7D
Figure 1 Intra-oral view of a quadhelix.
of two model quadhelix appliances have been
derived by applying the strain-energy approach
(Timoshenko, 1955; Waters, 1972, 1982) and the
resulting expressions for the force-deflection and
couple-rotation characteristics checked by labo-
ratory measurements using a specially designed
rig. In view of the complex nature of the analysis,
the possibility of errors, and to simplify checking,
a planar model was initially analysed. Once
satisfactory agreement with the experimental
results was obtained, this corrected analysis was
extended to a simplified three-dimensional case
and subjected to. further experimental verifica-
tion.
where Wt and W2 are the weights added to either
end of the beam of weight W.
In addition, the rotational couple N acting on
the bridge arm could be determined from the
difference in the weights at either end of the
beam, necessary to keep the latter horizontal,
and their moment arm
i.e., N = x(Wx - W2)
where x — the distance of either weight from the
centre of the beam. Knowing N, M the couple
acting on the molar could be obtained from the
geometry of the spring.
M=N- P[H2cos02 - HiCosO, -
K 1 ( l - s i n 0 1 ) + /? 2 (sin0 1 -sin0 2 )]
In general in clinical use the molar arm of the
appliance will be rotated by an angle <p when
attached to the molar via a soldered joint or
sleeve. Provision was made for changing q> to a
predetermined value by mounting the molar arm
clamp so that its angulation in a vertical plane
could be adjusted (Fig. 3B).
The three-dimensional model used to rep-
S. P . JONES AND N. E. WATERS
resent an actual quadhelix appliance consisted
of two planar half quadhelices each gabled (and
meeting at the centre of the bridge at an angle
T) as shown in Fig. 2B.
The deformation behaviour of these models
was determined with the rig used previously for
the two-dimensional models but held at an angle
of T degrees to the vertical as shown in Fig.
3C. Throughout a loading sequence the half
appliance was kept in a plane at T degrees to
the vertical by adjusting the weight Q attached
by a perpendicular thread to the centre of the
Perspex beam.
Details of the dimensions of the model ap-
pliances used are given in Table 1. All appliances
were formed from 18/8 stainless steel wire of
1.0 mm diameter (K C Smith, Redbrook Road,
Monmouth). The flexural rigidity (El) of the
wire used was determined by a cantilever beam
method (Waters et al., 1975) and the torsional
rigidity (nJ) by a modification of Searle's method
(Champion and Davy, 1947). In this method a
bar of known moment of inertia (/0) is suspended
at its mid-point by a known length (1) of the
wire under test rigidly held at its upper end. The
determination of the mean time of oscillation
(T) of the bar in the horizontal plane enables nJ
to be calculated from the formula:
Materials and methods
The deformation characteristics of a planar
model of the quadhelix was first analysed by the
complementary (strain) energy method (Timosh-
enko, 1955; Waters, 1972, 1982). The essential
steps in this analysis and the derived expressions
for the deformation behaviour are given in the
Appendix. An essential first step in this type of
analysis (Fig. 2A) is the determination of the
disposition and magnitude of the forces and
couples required to maintain the equilibrium of
each component part of the appliance when an
external force P and couple M are required to
contract and rotate the arms, respectively, to
locate them against the molars. In practice the
molar arm is either soldered directly to an
orthodontic band or inserted indirectly via a
palatal sleeve; in either case the fixing may be
assumed to be rigid. The deformation character-
istics of the central portion may thus be con-
sidered independently of the anterior arms.
 QUADHELIX MAXILLARY EXPANSION APPLIANCE 171

0 1

B
Case 1 Case 2
FIG 2A
Figure 2(A) Diagramatic representation of one half of the appliance showing the forces and couples operating on each
component when the appliance is inserted. Left: Case I, the planar model. Right: Case 2, loading system which when combined
with Case I gives the loading on the 3D model (Case 3). N.B. Couples are shown as vectors (broad arrows); O, ® signify forces
out of and into the plane, respectively.

M.

Occlusal plane /c
Case 2 Case 3
Case 1
FIG 2B
Figure 2(B) End on views of one half of 3D model quadhelix showing, from left to right, the disposition of the external force
and couple for cases I, 2 and 3, respectively.

Although the latter may be activated by different
amounts to suit the particular clinical situation,
in general the central portion between the molar
fixing will be symmetrical about the midline, so
that only one half of it need be considered.
The rig used for the experimental determi-
nation of the deformation behaviour is shown
diagrammatically in Fig. 3A. One half of a
spring is held rigidly in a vertical plane by a
clamp simulating the fixation point to a molar
whose vertical angulation may be adjusted. A
rigid but light symmetrical beam of Perspex had
a small block of the same material fixed to the
underside at the exact centre and was drilled
to secure the anterior bridge portion of the
appliance. It carried small hooks at each end at
equal distances from the centre. By the addition
of weights to the hooks, known molar forces
172 S. P. JONES AND N. E. WATERS

The experimental procedure was as follows.

An appliance fabricated from wire of known
flexural and torsional rigidity (£7 and nJ respect-
ively) and of known dimensions and spatial
disposition was rigidly mounted in the molar
clamp. The angulation of the clamp was adjusted
to a suitable value by means of a protractor
aligned with a plumb line. The Perspex beam
was fixed rigidly to the bridge arm and the
vertical alignment of the appliance checked.
FIG 3A FIG 3B Weights were added to the beam to bring it
horizontal; the spring thus loaded simulated
an active appliance in the clinical situation.
Additional loads were then added to the beam
and their disposition at either end of the beam
adjusted to ensure that it remained horizontal.
Readings of the contraction of the appliance
(y) for suitable load increments were made
with a direct reading vernier microscope. This
procedure enabled the force (/^-deflection (y)
characteristics of the quadhelix to be recorded
for a known angulation of the molar as
FIG 3C
P = Wy + W2 + W
Figure 3(A) Experimental rig used for planar quadhelix.

Figure 3(B) Experimental method of varying 0, the angle of

rotation of the molar arm.
Figure 3(C) Method adopted for holding model appliance
at T° to the vertical to simulate loading of the 3D appliance.
and couples could be applied to the appliance.
A pointer fixed to the mid-point allowed the
angulation of the beam to the horizontal to be
assessed.
Results and discussion
Experimental measurements of model appliances
A typical set of results for a planar appliance is
shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Figure 4 depicts the
deflection (y) and bridge couple (AO obtained
for increasing values of the load (P). In both
cases the plots are seen, within the limits of

Table 1 Dimensions of model appliances.

I mm diameter K. C. Smith hard drawn stainless steel wire was used for which the measured flexural rigidity (El) 8800 g cm2 and
the ratio of the Young's modulus to the rigidity modulus (E/n), 2.46.

Appliance Hi H2 Ri R2 L Symbols on Graphs

reference (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) 01° 62° Of 0° T° figures 6 and 7

A 40 15 2.5 2.5 40 20 10 10 0 •
B 21 5.5 1.5 1.5 16 10 10 10 0 ©•
C 28 10 1.75 2.0 30 26 1 1 0 O
D 40 20 2.0 2.0 42 23 8 13 -5 0 n
18 -10 0 n
23 -15 0 D
E 35 15 2.0 2.0 28 21 30 30 0 10 •
20 •
30 T
F 40 15 2.5 2.5 40 20 10 10 0 10 D
20 A
30

* To obtain the stiffness multiply the graphed values by 2.

QUADHELIX MAXILLARY EXPANSION APPLIANCE 173
5000 experimental error, to be linear as is required by
the analysis and the majority of the points lie
within the probable error envelope for each
predicted mean slope.
The variation in the bridge couple .A/ with
increasing load P for three different values of q>
for the same size model appliance is shown in
Figure 5, together with the predicted theoretical
behaviour. The derived theoretical relationships
§ predict that linear plots of the same slope but
with increasing intercepts should be obtained as
the angle 6 is increased. The general agreement
is good.
The agreement between the predicted values
and experimental results for the stiffness {Ply)
and the slope of the bridge couple (./V) versus
applied load (P) obtained in each case by linear
regression for all the model appliances examined
50 100 150
is shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. The error
bars denote the most probable error in the value
Load P(g)
of the stiffness predicted by the analysis assuming
Figure 4 Load P versus deflection y and bridge couple N probable errors of + 1 mm and +1° in the
versus load P for appliance A (0 = 0). Solid lines represent lengths and angular dispositions of the com-
theoretical slopes, dotted lines represent limits of error
envelope.
ponents and probable errors of 0.2 mm and
+ 5% in the radii of the helices and the flexural
and torsional rigidities (£7 and nJ, respectively).
Taking into consideration the difficulties of
alignment the general agreement between the

5000 -

4000 -

3000 -

m 2000 -

1000 -

200 40 60 100
(P/y) expt

Figure 6 Theoretical versus experimental stiffnesses (P/y)

Figure 5 Load P versus bridge couple N for various angles 0 for both 2D and 3D model appliances. For key to symbols see
for appliance D. Table 1.
 174
10 15
(dN/dP) oxpl
Figure 7 Theoretical versus experimental (dN/dP) for both
2D and 3D model appliances. For key to symbols see Table 1.
experimental results and the predicted behaviour
for the three-dimensional as well as planar
models is once again satisfactory.
Predicted characteristics of the quadhelix ap-
pliance and the influence of design factors
The agreement obtained between the experimen-
tal results and those predicted by the derived
equations allows the latter to be used to examine
the design features which determine the magni-
tude and sense of the forces and couples prod-
uced clinically.
As noted previously in the review of the
literature in all the laboratory studies reported
to date, linear load-deflection relationships were
obtained (as predicted by the analysis) with
stiffness ranging from 18 to 79.5 grams force/mm
for appliances formed from 1 mm diameter
stainless steel wire. In common with other ortho-
dontic wire appliances and components the stiff-
ness is directly proportional to the flexural
rigidity (El) of the wire, providing the stresses
developed are below the yield stress of the wire.
The marked variation in stiffness with wire
diameter observed in previous laboratory studies
is thus confirmed, the stiffness being pro-
portional to the wire diameter raised to the
fourth power.
The size and general geometry of the quadhelix
clearly plays an important role in determining
the forces and couples produced in clinical use.
As may be seen from Figures 6 and 7 compar-
ing the smallest with the largest appliance (A
and D of Table 1, respectively), the range in
S. P. JONES AND N. E. WATERS
measured stiffness P/y was from 25-175 g/mm,
and the change in bridge couple (N) per unit
change in lateral force (P) i.e., (dN/dP) from 7.5
to approximately 20 gmm/mm. The marked
changed of lateral stiffness with appliance size
is shown by the analysis to arise because the
stiffness is inversely proportional to the sum of
a number of factors involving the lengths of the
component parts raised to the third power.
The effect of appliance size and geometry is
considered from the clinical point of view, in
paper II (Jones and Waters, 1989).
The analysis may be used to provide an insight
into the factors controlling the magnitude and
sense of the couples acting on the molar teeth.
Considering the anterior arms as being in a
passive state once again, it may be deduced that
the larger the quantity (H^ -H2) the larger the
couple, and the larger Rj and R2 the smaller the
couple. Increasing 9i produces a reduction in
the molar couple (M 2 ), whereas increase in 92
an increase. Increases in the bridge length L and
gable angle T tend to increase and decrease the
molar couple, respectively, and also reduce the
lateral stiffness.
Reference to the expression derived for M
from the analysis (see Appendix) shows that M2
is composed of two terms.
Thus M2 = MV + My
. ,. 2EIq> ... PV
where Mv = — ~ and My = ——-y
Here Vx and V2 for any given appliance are
constants dependent solely on the dimensions
and geometry and El is the flexural rigidity of
the wire. The magnitude of the contribution to
the total molar couple made by the first term
Mv is consequently proportional to both <p and
also to the flexural rigidity (El) of the wire and
is independent of the amount of contraction
necessary on insertion, i.e., is independent of the
load P. Since V2 is positive, the sense of M v will
vary according to whether <p is positive or
negative. As will be self-evident if a palatal
rotation of the molar arm is applied to obtain
engagement (i.e., q> is positive) a couple M9
tending to rotate the molar mesio-buccally will
be induced. Conversely, if the molar arm has to
rotate bucally for engagement (<p negative) a
mesio-palatal rotational couple MQ will operate.
The second term My is proportional to the
ratio of two geometrical constants Vx and V2 and
is directly proportional to the load P necessary to
QUADHELIX MAXILLARY EXPANSION APPLIANCE
contract the appliance to allow insertion. For a
given contraction (y) this means that My will
also be proportional to the flexural rigidity (El)
of the wire. Providing the buccal arm H2 is
short, Vl will be negative so that the term My
which is solely due to the contraction of the
appliance, will be positive i.e., will tend to cause
mesio-buccal molar rotation. Expressed in other
words, when the appliance is contracted the
buccal arms will rotate palatally and hence will
tend to rotate buccally as the appliance returns
to its unstrained state.
The magnitude and sense of the total molar
couple is obtained by taking the algebraic sum
If a mesio-buccal rotation of the molars is
desired it is only necessary to ensure that the
molar arm needs to be rotated palatally to
engage the molars since both M^ and My are
positive. If on the other hand, a mesio-palatal
rotation is desired, it is necessary to ensure that
the mesio-buccal rotation of the molar arm
on engagement, produces a sufficiently large
negative couple Mv to counteract the positive
couple My induced by contracting the appliance.
It will be evident from the above discussion
that in order to characterize the molar couple
of a particular quadhelix appliance it is necessary
to define two additional spring characteristics,
namely (dM2/d<p) and (dM2/dy). These are ob-
tained by differentiating the expression for the
molar couple developed (M2) with respect to (p
(the angular rotation of the buccal arm) as-
suming the displacement y is constant, and then
with respect to y, assuming q> is constant. Using
the abbreviations M\ and M\ for these two
characteristics gives:
diW 2 2EI
<p
dip v2
and
AM 2 2EIV2
A/f 1 -
dv (* 2V3— V^Vx)
' when the appliance is inserted. Both couples
The knowledge of these two spring character-
istics allows the net molar couple M 2 to be
determined for any buccal arm rotation <p and
any deflection y, for
In a similar way, the lateral molar force for a
given deflection y will be given by: P = Sy.
175
Effects of the anterior arms
The anterior arms of the appliance will affect
both the forces and the couples operating on the
molar teeth because these arms will be rigidly
attached to the molar. If a force PA is generated
by activating these arms at the effective distance
LA from the molar fixing then the force of
expansion on the molars will be reduced by
an amount PA and an anti-clockwise couple of
magnitude PALA will operate on the molar.
Expressed algebraically:
where M 3 = —PALA.
Thus, if the anterior arms are not passive
when the appliance is inserted the force of
expansion on the molars is reduced and the
leverage effect of this arm will reduce any mesio-
buccal rotation intentionally applied to the
molars or enhance any intended mesio-palatal
rotation.
Conclusions
1. The deformation characteristics of the
quadhelix maxillary expansion appliance de-
rived by the complementary (strain) energy
method, show good agreement with experi-
mental measurements on enlarged models.
2. The size and general geometry of the
quadhelix is shown by the analysis to play an
important role in determining the forces and
couples produced on activation.
3. For small strains, the force developed is
proportional to the deflection, and the stiff-
ness (Ply) is directly proportional to the
~ flexural"rigidity (El) of the wire._
4. The molar couple induced is dependent on
the algebraic sum of two couples, one of
which is proportional to the angle q> the
molar arm is rotated for engagement, and the
other couple to the lateral displacement y
are directly proportional to the flexural rigid-
ity (El) of the wire.
5. The characteristics of the quadhelix appliance
are completely characterized by three par-
ameters, the lateral stiffness (S), and the rate
of change of the molar couple with respect
to firstly, q> and secondly, to the lateral
displacement y.
176
6. Activation of the anterior arms against the
premolars will reduce the force of expansion
on the molars and produce a couple acting
in a mesio-palatal sense.
Address for correspondence
Professor N E Waters
Department of Dental Materials Science
United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's
and St. Thomas's Hospitals
Guy's Campus
London Bridge SE1 9RT
References
Asher C 1985 The removable quadhelix appliance. British
Journal of Orthodontics 12: 40-45
Bell R A 1982 A review of maxillary expansion in relation
to rate of expansion and patient's age. American Journal
of Orthodontics 81: 32-37
Bell R A, LeCompte E J 1981 The effects of maxillary
expansion using a quadhelix appliance during the decidu-
ous and mixed dentitions. American Journal of Orthodon-
tics 79: 152-161
Bench R W, Gugino C F, Hilgers J J 1978 Bioprogressive
Therapy. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 12: 279-298
and 505-521
Birnie D J, McNamara T G 1980 The quadhelix appliance.
British Journal of Orthodontics 7: 115-120
Chaconas S J, Caputo A A 1982 Observation of orthopaedic
force distribution produced by maxillary orthodontic
appliances. American Journal of Orthodontics 82: 492-
501
Chaconas S J, de Alba y Levy J A 1977 Orthopaedic
and orthodontic applications of the quadhelix appliance.
American Journal of Orthodontics 72: 422-428
Champion F C, Davy N 1947 Properties of matter. Blackie
and Son Ltd., London
Coffin W H 1881 A generalized treatment of irregularities.
Transactions of the International Congress of Medicine
London: J W Klackmann 3: 542-547
Evans D J 1974 Software for numerical mathematics.
London and New York, Academic Press
Frank S W, Engel G A 1982 The effects of maxillary
quadhelix expansion on cephalometric measurements in
growing patients. American Journal of Orthodontics 81:
378-389
Hermanson H, Kurol J, Ronnerman A 1985 Treatment of
unilateral posterior crossbite with quadhelix and remov-
able plates. A retrospective study. European Journal of
Orthodontics 7: 97-102
Jones S P, Waters N E 1989 The quadhelix maxillary
expansion appliance. II: Clinical characteristics. Euro-
pean Journal of Orthodontics. In press
Kamogashira K, Hata S, Ichikawa K, Hirose T, Kubota A,
Matsumoto M 1983 The effects on the maxillary complex
induced by the quadhelix appliance—measurement by
S. P. JONES AND N. E. WATERS
strain gauges. Journal of the Japanese Orthodontic
Society 42: 442-453
Ricketts R M 1975 Growth prediction: Part 2. Journal of
Clinical Orthodontics 9: 340-362
Thomas G G, Bell R A, Mitchell R 1982 Experimentally
determined forces of maxillary lingual arch expansion
appliances. Journal of Pedodontics 7: 3-10
Timoshenko S 1955 Strength of materials. 3rd edition 328-
334. New Jersey: Van Nostrand Company Incorporated
Waters N E 1982 The mechanics of buccal canine retraction
springs for removable orthodontic appliances. British
Journal of Orthodontics 9: 164-172
Waters N E 1972 The mechanics of finger and retraction
springs of removable orthodontic appliances. Archives of
Oral Biology 15: 349-363
Waters N E, Stephens C D, Houston W J B 1975 Physical
characteristics of orthodontic wires and archwires. British
Journal of Orthodontics 2: 15-24
West V C 1984 The Cricket appliance. Journal of Clinical
Orthodontics 18: 806-810
Appendix
Derivation of the theoretical model
The analytical method has been described in detail in a
previous paper (Waters, 1982). In brief, the procedure
required for the three-dimensional model of the
quadhelix is as follows:
1. The appliance is considered to be separated into
its basic components, as shown in Fig. 2(A).
2. The forces and couples required to maintain each
component in equilibrium are determined in terms
of the external force(s) and couple(s) acting. (For
case 1, the planar appliance these are the lateral
contracting force P and the couple M tending to
rotate the molar arm, H2. For case 2 an external
force Q is considered to act at the end of the molar
arm H2 in a direction perpendicular to the plane
of the appliance together with a couple M^ acting
at the same point whose vector direction is the
same as the direction of P.)
3. The determination of the strain energy of each
component for both cases 1 and 2.
4. The summation of the individual strain energies
to give the total strain energy in each of the two
cases, £/, and U2.
5. The application of Castigliano's theorem in the
forms
Of, 0U2
(a) - ^ - = yi and - ^ =
where ^ 2 and j»2 are the deflections in the direction
of and at the point of application of the forces P
and Q, respectively.
... dU, , , dU2
(b) ST7 = <P and —
where <p and a are the angular rotations produced
QUADHELIX MAXILLARY EXPANSION APPLIANCE
by the applied couples M and M! for cases 1 and
2, respectively.
6. The equations obtained may be solved simul-
taneously to give (i) for case 1, the deflection yt
under the load P and the value of M for a given
P and angle (p. (ii) for case 2, the deflection y2
under the applied force Q and the value of M, for
a given Q and angle a.
7. The separate analyses for cases 1 and 2 are then
combined to give the deflection characteristics of
the three-dimensional model (case 3) in which each
half of the quadhelix from the mid-sagittal plane
is assumed to be inclined at an angle 7" to a
horizontal plane (see Fig. 2(B)).
For case 3 the horizontal displacement y under
a force F is given by:
y = yt cos T=y2 sin T
and the angular rotation of the molar arm in the
occlusal (horizontal) plane by:
q>H = <p cos T+ a sin T
remembering that
177
<pH = 92cosT—0i
where 03 is the angle the molar tube orfixingmakes
in the horizontal plane, the following expressions,
written in BASIC for ease of assembly into a
computer program, may be derived for the molar
couple M2, the deflection y for a given load Fand
stiffness S. If the load F for a given deflection y is
required, a simple iterative procedure, e.g., the
Newton-Ralphson (Evans, 1974) may be used. In
these expressions G = the flexural rigidity of the
wire {El) in the plane of bending and R = E\n, the
ratio- of the Young's modulus to the rigidity
modulus of the wire. Note that the angles 9U 92,
93 and <p which would normally be measured in
degrees have been transformed to angles A, B, C
and D (AO, BO, CO and DO in radian measure).
Again, the variables DMT and DMY denote the
change in M2 per degree change in cp, and the
change in M2 per unit change in y.
hA 2*G*D0 F*V,

and

and using the relationship

K4 + F*K3]/(2*G)
S = 2G/(K3-K1*K4/K2)
DMT=2*G/V2
DMY=-2*G*V\I(V2*V3-V\*V4)
PI =3.14159 Q9 = Q2*Q2
X = L/2 Q10 = Q4*Q4
AO = A*P1/18O Qll = Q 9 - Q 1 0
BO = B*P1/180 Q12 = Q3*Q3
CO = C*P1/180 Q13 = Q1*Q1
TO = T*P1/180 Q14 = Q6*Q6
A6 = AO + BO Q15 = 2*QUQ3
A5 = (3iPl)-A6— Q16 = 2*Q5*Q6- —
A51 =5*Pl/2-AO Q17 = 2*Q2*Q4
Ql = COS(AO) Ul =SIN(TO)
Q2 = COS(BO) U2 = COS(TO)
Q3 = SIN(AO) U3 = U1*U1
Q4 = SIN(BO) U4 = U2*U2
Q5 = COS(A6) ZO = H2*Q2-R2*Q4
Q6 = SIN(A6) Zl = H2*Q2 + R2*(Q3-Q4)
Q7 = Q2 + Q4 Z2 = Z1-(H1*Q1)
Q8 = Q2-Q4 Z3 = Z2-R1*(1-Q3)
Fl = ( ( H 2 A 2 ) » Q 2 ) - ( ( H 1 A2)*Q1) + (2*Z1*H1) + (2*Z3*X)
F2 = (2*Z0*R2*A5) + ( 2 * ( R 2 A 2 ) * Q 2 * ( 1 + Q 5 ) )
F3 = (2*(R2 A 2)*Q4*Q6)
F4 = 2*(Z3 + Rl)*RU((5*Pl/2)-AO)-(2*(Rl A2)*Q1)
Bl = F 1 + F 2 + F3 + F4
El = ( ( 2 / 3 ) * ( H 2 A 3 ) * ( Q 2 A 2 ) ) + ((2/3)*(H1 A3)*(Q1 A 2))
178 S. P. JONES AND N. E. WATERS

E2 = (2*(Z1 A 2 ) * H 1 ) - ( 2 * Z 1 * ( H 1 A 2 ) * Q 1 )
E3 = (2*(Z3 A2)*X) + ( 2 * ( Z 0 A 2 ) * R 2 * A 5 )
E4 = 4*Z0*(R2A2)*Q2*(1 +Q5)
E5 = 4*Z0*(R2 A 2)*Q4*Q6
E6 = (1/2)*(R2 A 3)*(SIN(2*A6))*((Q2 A 2) -(Q4 A 2))
E7 = (3*P1 *(R2 A 3)*(Q2 A 2)) + (A5*(R2 A 3)*(Q4 A 2))
E8 = 2*(R2 A 3)*Q4*Q2*(Q6 A 2)
E9 = 2*((Z3 + R 1 ) A 2 ) * R 1 * ( ( 5 * P I / 2 ) - A O )
F6 = 4*(R1 A2)*(Z3 + R1)*Q1
F7 = 2*(R1 A 3 ) * ( ( ( 5 * P 1 / 4 ) - ( A O / 2 ) ) + ((COS(2*AO))/4))
B2 = E1+E2 + E3 + E4 + E5 + E6 + E7 + E8 + E9-F6 + F7
C\ = 2*(H1 +H2 + X + (R2*A5) + (RU((5*Pl/2)-AO)))
C 3 = ( ( H 2 A 2 ) * Q 2 ) - ( ( H 1 A 2 ) * Q 1 ) + (2*Z1*H1) + (2*Z3*X)
C4 = (2*Z0*R2*A5) + (2*(R2 A2)*Q2*(1 + Q5))
C5 = 2*(R2 A 2)*Q4*Q6
C6 = (2*Rl*(Z3 + Rl)*((5*Pl/2)-AO))-(2*(Rl A2)*Q1)

= H2*U1+R2*(1+U2)
D33 = H2*Q5-R2*Q6
= H2*Q4+H1*Q3 + R2*(Q1+Q2) +
= H2*Q2-H1*Q1+R2*(Q3-Q4)-R1*(1-Q3)
D36 = D35 + R1
K11 = 2*H I *D33*Q1 + H2*H2*Q2 + R2*H2*Q8* A5 + R2*H2*Q 16*Q7/2
K.12 = R2*Q14*Z4 + Rl*A51*D36-Rl*Q15*D36/2 + R)*D34*Q13
K13 = R/2*(L*D35 + 2*Hl*D33*Ql+R2*A5*H2*Q8-R2*Q16*H2*Q7/2)
K14= R/2*(-R2*Q14*Z4 + 2*R2*R2*(Ql+Q2) + Rl*A51*D36)
K15 = R/2*(Rl*Q15*D36/2-Rl*D34*Q13-2*Rl*Rl*Ql)
Kl =K1I+K12 + K13 + K14 + K15-H1*HI*Q1
Lll =2*Hl*Q13 + 2*H2*Q9 + R2*A5 + R2*Q16*Qll/2-R2*Q14*Q17
L12 = Rl*A51-Rl*QI5/2
L13 = R/2*(L + 2*Hl*QI3 + 2*H2*Q10 + R2*A5-R2*Q16*Qll/2)
L14= R/2*(R2*Q14*Q17 + Rl*A51+RUQ15/2)
LI =L11+LI2 + L13 + L14
K21 = 2/3*(X*X*X + Hl*Hl*Hl +H2*H2*H2) + 2*X*X*D34
K22 = L*D34*D34-2*H1*H1*D33 + 2*H1*D33*D33 + R2*A5*Z5
K23 = R2*Z6*Q16/2 + 2*R2*R2*H2*Q14 + Rl*A51*(D36*D36
K24 = RI/2*(D34*D34-D36*D36)*Q15 + 2*RUQ13*D34*D36
K25 = R/2*(L*D35*D35 + 2*HI*D33*D33 + R2*A5*Z5-R2*Z6*Q16/2)
K26=R/2*(4*H2*R2*R2*Q5-2*H2*R2*R2*QI4-4*R2*R2*R2*Q6)
K27 = R/2*(4*H2*R2*R2 + A5*R2*R2*R2 + R1*A5U(D36*D36 + D34
K28 = R/2*(-Rl*Q15*(D34*D34-D36*D36)/2-2*RUQ13*D34*D36)
K29= R/2*(2*A51*R1*R1*R1+4*RUR1*D34-2*R1*R1*(D34*

L21 = -H1*H1*Q1+2*H1*D33*Q1+H2*H2*Q2 + R2*A5*H2*Q8

L22 = R2*H2*Q16*Q7/2 + R2*Q14*Z4
L23 = Rl*A51*D36-RUQ15*D36/2 + RUD34*Q13
L24 = R/2*(L*D35 + 2*H 1 *D33*Q 1 + R2*H2* A5*Q8)
L25 = R/2*(-R2*H2*Q16*Q7/2-R2*Q14*Z4 + 2*R2*R2*Q5)
L26= R/2*(4*R2*R2*Q6*Q4 + 2*R2*R2*Q2 + Rl*A51*D36 + Rl*Q15*D36/2-Rl*Q13*D34)
L2 = L21+L22 + L23 + L24+L25 + L26
VI =B1*U4 + KI*U3
V2 = CUU4 + L1*U3
V3 = B2*U4+K2*U3
V4 = C2*U4+L2*U3
V5 = V3*V2-V1*V4
V6 = V5/V2
DO= BO*U2-CO*U2